 |
| Marcel Strigberger |
“LORD KRAMER
This is a case about nothing,
Representing the plaintiff is attorney Jackie Chiles. Representing the defendant is postal worker Hello Newman.
The plaintiff Ms. Donoghue who, while going on a stroll, munched on a bag of pretzels. After consuming the bag, she said to herself, “These pretzels are making me thirsty.” She decided to quench her thirst by dropping into the Monk’s Café. She ordered a bottle of ginger beer manufactured by the defendant. The bottle was opaque. After taking a guzzle or two from the bottle, she asked the server for a glass. When she poured the contents into the glass, out slid a slimy snail. The plaintiff freaked out and the café’s owner, one Mulva, was summoned. An argument ensued during which the plaintiff called the owner a “ginger beer Nazi.” The owner ejected her from the café, shouting out loud, “No ginger beer for you.”
The plaintiff claims she suffered mental distress and nervous shock consequent to the incident. She notes that this action is not about the money. All she wants is “serenity now.”
She alleges the subject snail was about 10 centimetres in length. The defendant takes issue with this description of the periwinkle. It called as an expert witness one Professor George Costanza who testified that when a snail sits in ginger beer for a while, its size unusually diminishes to about two centimetres, and that this change is due to shrinkage. The court accepts the evidence of Professor Costanza. His testimony is certainly sponge-worthy.
The question is, did the manufacturer owe a duty of care to the plaintiff?
The plaintiff’s lawyer filed an extensive brief of cases in support of his argument. His position in short is that the defendant is negligent on the basis of the neighbour principle, which is basically all about a possible duty owed to a non-contracting party, or as Lord Buckminster said in the landmark case of Sheffield Corporation v. Pickles, yada, yada, yada. The court does not accept the plaintiff’s argument. Accordingly, she will be getting zero, nada, bupkis. The action is dismissed.”
This is a case about nothing,
Representing the plaintiff is attorney Jackie Chiles. Representing the defendant is postal worker Hello Newman.
The plaintiff Ms. Donoghue who, while going on a stroll, munched on a bag of pretzels. After consuming the bag, she said to herself, “These pretzels are making me thirsty.” She decided to quench her thirst by dropping into the Monk’s Café. She ordered a bottle of ginger beer manufactured by the defendant. The bottle was opaque. After taking a guzzle or two from the bottle, she asked the server for a glass. When she poured the contents into the glass, out slid a slimy snail. The plaintiff freaked out and the café’s owner, one Mulva, was summoned. An argument ensued during which the plaintiff called the owner a “ginger beer Nazi.” The owner ejected her from the café, shouting out loud, “No ginger beer for you.”
The plaintiff claims she suffered mental distress and nervous shock consequent to the incident. She notes that this action is not about the money. All she wants is “serenity now.”
She alleges the subject snail was about 10 centimetres in length. The defendant takes issue with this description of the periwinkle. It called as an expert witness one Professor George Costanza who testified that when a snail sits in ginger beer for a while, its size unusually diminishes to about two centimetres, and that this change is due to shrinkage. The court accepts the evidence of Professor Costanza. His testimony is certainly sponge-worthy.
The question is, did the manufacturer owe a duty of care to the plaintiff?
The plaintiff’s lawyer filed an extensive brief of cases in support of his argument. His position in short is that the defendant is negligent on the basis of the neighbour principle, which is basically all about a possible duty owed to a non-contracting party, or as Lord Buckminster said in the landmark case of Sheffield Corporation v. Pickles, yada, yada, yada. The court does not accept the plaintiff’s argument. Accordingly, she will be getting zero, nada, bupkis. The action is dismissed.”
CAVEAT: As we read almost daily about lawyers getting into trouble with the courts for relying on hallucinatory case law, I just know in citing Donoghue v. Stevenson some colleagues may come across this version of the case and quote it. You are free to do so. Good luck — not that there’s anything wrong with that.
Marcel Strigberger retired from his Greater Toronto Area litigation practice and continues the more serious business of humorous author and speaker. His book, Boomers, Zoomers, and Other Oomers: A Boomer-biased Irreverent Perspective on Aging, is available on Amazon (e-book) and in paper version. His new(!) book First, Let’s Kill the Lawyer Jokes: An Attorney’s Irreverent Serious Look at the Legal Universe is available on Amazon, Apple and other book places. Visit www.marcelshumour.com. Follow him on X @MarcelsHumour.
The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the author’s firm, its clients, Law360 Canada, LexisNexis Canada or any of its or their respective affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.
Interested in writing for us? To learn more about how you can add your voice to Law360 Canada, contact Analysis Editor Peter Carter at peter.carter@lexisnexis.ca or call 647-776-6740.